Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Adams v. Council Baradel, 00-2427 (2001)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 00-2427 Visitors: 9
Filed: Feb. 27, 2001
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-2427 In Re: JOHN A. ADAMS, Debtor. JOHN A. ADAMS, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus COUNCIL, BARADEL, KOSMERL & NOLAN, P.A., Defendant - Appellee, and GEORGE W. LIEBMANN, Party in Interest. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. William M. Nickerson, District Judge. (CA-00-1322-WMN, BK-99-5-0705-SD, AP-99-5276-SD) Submitted: February 22, 2001 Decided: February 27, 2001 Before WI
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-2427 In Re: JOHN A. ADAMS, Debtor. JOHN A. ADAMS, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus COUNCIL, BARADEL, KOSMERL & NOLAN, P.A., Defendant - Appellee, and GEORGE W. LIEBMANN, Party in Interest. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. William M. Nickerson, District Judge. (CA-00-1322-WMN, BK-99-5-0705-SD, AP-99-5276-SD) Submitted: February 22, 2001 Decided: February 27, 2001 Before WIDENER and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. John A. Adams, Appellant Pro Se. Kevin Michael Schaeffer, COUNCIL, BARADEL, KOSMERL & NOLAN, P.A., Annapolis, Maryland, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: John A. Adams appeals from the district court’s order affirm- ing the bankruptcy court’s orders (1) determining that his debt of attorney’s fees were nondischargeable in his bankruptcy case, and (2) denying his motion for reconsideration. We have reviewed the record and the lower courts’ opinions and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Adams v. Council Baradel, Nos. CA-00-1322-WMN; BK-99-5-0705-SD; AP- 99-5276-SD (D. Md. Oct. 23, 2000). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED 2
Source:  CourtListener

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer